...Of Euphoria and Euphemism

There are very few opportunities for the media world over when they get a sort of moral carte blanche to show or print anything and get away with anything. In India, there are no such moral hang-ups any ways. It is not for nothing that our media is the most hilarious piece of self-appreciating Gorgon in any country that either claims to be democratic or at least aspires to be one.

The case, for the international media, is a bit tricky. It is precisely for this reason that they wait for such carte blanche once in a while to cleanse their suppressed emotions. Needless to say, Osama bin Laden gave them this long awaited moment and they grabbed it by both hands.

Broadly speaking, as it happens with any such clandestine operations, there were lots of “operation mists” in the initial days of it and hence every newspaper and channel was free to speculate, concoct, derive and analyse. Also, for the first few days, machismo hung heavy on scene and the initial reports focused more on the operation par se and its details than the political fallout and repercussions. The discussions across the media as well as on Facebook, Twitter and in the blogosphere, were primarily busy figuring out what really happened as well as initial reactions both from “experts” and hoi polloi. What is important is that a substantial portion of all these discussions was initially centred around the question that whether it was a hoax or not?

Another significant trend that was seen at least for initial 72 hours was that media was just parroting what the White House was giving them. There was no grilling or counter-question even though it was very clear by the second day that there were gaping holes in the version stated by the White House. First it was conveyed to the media that Osama used his wife as a human shield – a typical CIA practice for character assassination – but later it was denied. There were conflicting versions on number of people who were inside. However, media failed to raise questions on the very issue. This exposes the symbiotic relationship that flows between media and the regime even in an old democracy like the US.

The New York Times report was typical: “Military and intelligence officials first learned last summer that a ‘high-value target’ was being protected in the compound and began working on a plan for going in to get him. Beginning in March, Mr Obama presided over five national security meetings at the White House to go over plans for the operation.” No questions asked, no clarifications given.

As far as the coverage was concerned, it was unprecedented in last few years in terms of airtime and newsprint it took. The early wall-to-wall coverage of the bin Laden story accounted for an extraordinary 89 per cent of the mainstream media on May 2 and May 3.

Obviously, as mentioned earlier, the initial reporting was focused on details and it was in these details that many faltered.

There was ambiguity about every possible thing in the operation. However, the most hilarious was the very location of Abbottabad. There were all sorts of detailing about its possible distance from Islamabad. These accounts varied between 53 kms to 130 kms, depending on what you were reading and whom you were listening. That Americans use Foot-Pound-Second (FPS) system and not metric, lead to some hilarious situation in the Indian media. There were problems with perspective too. 130 kilometres for America and most of the Western countries can be counted as suburbs or even outskirts. Naturally, CNN, BBC and Fox, all of them stated Abbottabad as a “suburb” or “outskirts” of Islamabad. A few others as well as mainly British newspapers used “Outside Islamabad”. However, people who stay in the sub-continent can easily guess how much time 130 kilometres take to travel in this region. It was, therefore, surprising to see Indian channels and Newspapers referring it as a suburb of Islamabad. 

Another major goof-up was the emergence of fake picture of Osama’s dead body. In Britain, both the Daily Mail and the Daily Mirror, along with hundreds of publications in the US – which includes the New York Post – published an image intent to be that of the dead Osama. It was fake. No body, absolutely none of the journalists, cared to find the source of the picture and went on with it. It is shameful on the part of journalists that people on Twitter actually found out it was fake, and mind you they did it with little technical support. It was plain obvious that it was a fake. Needless to add, none, and I insist, none of these media houses published a relevant apology. 

As far as coverage by other outlets was concerned, it was mostly in line with their editorial policies. Of course, many went eclectic.

Daily News, from New York, played to the gallery and screamed: ROT IN HELL! On the other hand, its competitor, New York Times, was more matured in its coverage. It went with a rather plain headline but a incisive opening para:

“Osama bin Laden, the mastermind of the most devastating attack on American soil in modern times and the most hunted man in the world, was killed in a firefight with United States forces in Pakistan, President Obama announced on Sunday night.”

The Associated Press, whose write up was naturally used by thousands and thousands of papers worldwide, was point blank and discarded any embellishment whatsoever:

“Osama bin Laden, the face of global terrorism and architect of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, was killed in a firefight with elite American forces Monday, then quickly buried at sea in a stunning finale to a furtive decade on the run.”

On the other hand, The Washington Post’s lead led to another euphoric deceleration:

“Osama bin Laden, the long-hunted al-Qaeda leader and chief architect of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the United States, was killed by U.S. forces Sunday in what officials described as a surgical raid on his luxury hideout in Pakistan.”

Now it triggered various descriptions about the house he was staying in. Lots of military jargon like “reinforced wall”, “double layered protection” any many more were used. However, when the first footage of the house started being played, it was apparent that it was an average house and not much different from any of the houses in the area.

“Justice” motif was also variously used. A numerous headlines like JUSTICE SERVED, JUSTICE DELIVERED and JUSTICE DONE were seen on several local and national
banners.

But a few of the papers, mostly and understandably, in the US went no hold barred. “The butcher of 9/11 is DEAD” was the headline of the San Francisco Examiner. Similar provocative headlines like GOT THE BASTARD & STINK IN HELL were also seen.

Elsewhere, Jerusalem Post, typically, questioned Pakistan whereas The Independent remained mild in tone and high on quality content.

There were different discourse in different papers regarding the role of Pakistan and its agencies in the operation as well as in tacit support of Osama. In this regard, channels have been much more cautious than newspapers and took a careful stand as not to deteriorate an already strained relationship between Pakistan and the US.